Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

XiXiDu comments on Evidence for the orthogonality thesis - Less Wrong Discussion

11 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 03 April 2012 10:58AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (290)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ciphergoth 03 April 2012 12:01:02PM 23 points [-]

How good at playing chess would a chess computer have to be before it started trying to feed the hungry?

Comment author: XiXiDu 03 April 2012 12:41:06PM *  8 points [-]

How good at playing chess would a chess computer have to be before it started trying to feed the hungry?

That's up to the notion of 'good'. If 'good' is defined to be 'beats all humans alive right now', then it might "feed" the hungry to be able to win chess matches against them.

Comment author: [deleted] 03 April 2012 01:17:11PM 10 points [-]

Or kill everyone so they don't produce more humans it has to beat.

Comment author: Dmytry 03 April 2012 07:33:14PM *  2 points [-]

The utility is in beating, not in non-playing, presumably. But yea, if its to beat all humans vs to beat most humans. edit: or it can set it's 'number of humans alive' counter to zero directly without killing anyone.

Comment author: robertskmiles 03 December 2017 03:35:01PM 0 points [-]

A human with barely enough calories to survive is going to be a significantly weaker chess opponent.